Bullets, Ballots and Bibles: Documenting the History of the Gay and
Lesbian Struggle in America" ('Coming Out Under Fire,' 'Ballot Measure 9' and
'One Nation Under God')

by Bruce R. Brasell

Cineaste v21, n4 (Fall, 1995):17

COPYRIGHT Cineaste Publishers Inc. 1995. Used in the UCB Media Resources Web site with permission.

Although 'coming out' continues to be the primary theme of
documentaries produced about the gay and lesbian community, this focus is
changing as filmmakers have begun to explore other aspects of gay and
lesbian existence. The predominance of the coming-out narrative is
understandable, given the relatively recent emergence of the gay and
lesbian socio-political movement. Over the past decade, two significant
changes have been occurring in gay and lesbian documentary film
production. First, our concept of gays and lesbians as a 'community' has
been replaced with the idea of many different gay and lesbian
'communities' (for example, the Harlem ball circuit and related houses in
Paris is Burning and rural southerners in Greetings from Out Here).
Filmmakers are now exploring the differences among ourselves rather than
just our differences from or similarity to straight society. This shift in
gay and lesbian film production parallels the shift in gay and lesbian
politics from the idea that, "We're the same as straight people" to "We're
here, we're queer, get used to it," a move from a plea for acceptance by
straight society because we are all the same, regardless of sexual
orientation, to a demand for straight society to 'grow up' when it comes
to matters of sexual diversity.

The other change in gay and lesbian documentaries has involved a
greater concern with history. Not history as in 'outing' historical
figures, but a social history of gays and lesbians and the various ways
they have been shaped into communities, both voluntarily and by force -
for example, the military's anti-gay and lesbian policy during WWII, which
many believe was a major factor contributing to the subsequent development
of urban gay communities throughout the U.S. More importantly, history is
being used as a means to understand the roots of the contemporary
situation in which gays and lesbians in the U.S. find themselves, such as
the military ban and continual opposition from fundamentalist Christians.

Three recent documentaries - Arthur Dong's Coming Out Under Fire,
Heather MacDonald's Ballot Measure 9, and Teodoro Maniaci and Francine M.
Rzeznik's One Nation Under God - reflect these thematic shifts, although each to a certain extent also embodies a traditional 'coming out'
narrative. Coming Out Under Fire, for example, focuses on the dire
consequences of being out in the military during WWII, Ballot Measure 9
the need to be out in order to effectively fight a proposed Oregon law
permitting discrimination against gays and lesbians, and One Nation Under
God the second coming out of religious ex-gays who renounce their prior
belief about the incompatibility of their homosexuality and Christianity.
Unlike such classic gay and lesbian documentaries as Word Is Out and Gay
U.S.A., these films succeed in moving beyond the coming-out narrative,
exploring how the military, judicial, and religious systems, respectively,
function to exclude gays and lesbians from American society.

Arthur Dong's 1994 film, Coming Out Under Fire, based on Allan
Berube's 1991 book, Coming Out Under Fire: The History Gay Men and Women
in World War IIf, examines the wartime emergence of the American
military's ban against gay and lesbian soldiers. The film charts not only
this development but also the ban's postwar expansion to homosexuals in
federal government jobs. The film opens and closes with the 1993
congressional hearings on gays and lesbians in the military, framing its
historical inquiry within this contemporary debate which resulted in the
infamous 1993 "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. In between, we are exposed
to a barrage of talking-head interviews, archival film footage, and WWII
military training film excerpts, all overlaid with a Voice-of-God
narration.

The film is divided into two, the first half focusing on military
recruitment and day to day life, the second half on military
investigations and purges. We learn that at the beginning of the war the
military initiated screening processes to weed out mentally ill military
recruits because psychiatric casualties had been a major problem in WWI.
As one would expect, these screening guidelines classified homosexuality
as a mental illness, illustrated here with excerpts from mental-health
films. One such clip describes the "Drawing a man test," where, over pen
and ink drawings, the health-film narrator informs us that "The drawing a
man test is a clinically valuable projective technique in the study of
male homosexuality. Many homosexuals would draw a man with noticeable
feminine characteristics." It is hard to believe today that such
harebrained tests were taken seriously by psychologists at the time.

The film's Voice-of-God narrator tells us that "Under wartime
pressure to use every available woman or man, military officials sometimes
let known homosexuals serve and even found ways to utilize behavior
ordinarily perceived as queer." One such use, illustrated with archival
footage, was female drag shows to entertain the male troops. Tom Reddy, a
Marine whose duty was to perform drag, casually tells how, like everyone else, "I wore a backpack even though it had costumes in it. But I was
basically a Marine. It was never a problem." Such inclusion of gays and
lesbians by military officials was the exception for, in the words of the
voice-over narrator, "Most believed that despite the acute need for
personnel, there was no place for homosexuals anywhere in the armed
forces."

Military service provided many gay men and lesbians with their first
opportunity to enjoy gay camaraderie. One soldier, identified only as
Clark, describes how he and a friend printed The Myrtle Beach Bitch, a
newsletter containing gay gossip that circulated around the globe. Marvin
Liebman reminisces about his circle of military friends who imitated the
language spoken by the characters in Dorothy Parker's short stories, which
were officially circulated to military men through an armed services
edition. Liebman and his friends mimicked Parker's style, including such phrases as "I could spit I was so angry," and punctuating their sentences
with expressions such as "divine" and "darling." The interviewees describe
not only the development of camaraderie among gay and lesbian soldiers but
also a common language that differentiated them from straight troops.

The film points out that, "By the time troop strength reached ten
million, it was clear screening had not kept them [homosexuals] out."
Under existing policy, homosexuals could be discharged by a court-martial
only for sodomy, so commanding officers demanded a new policy that would
allow for a more efficient means of discharging homosexual personnel. By
the middle of the war, military policymakers finally agreed on that
policy: diagnosing homosexuals as psychopaths and disposing of them as
undesirables. This new procedure meant that a man or woman could be
discharged, in the words of the narrator, "Just for being homosexual, not
for what they did." The military thus initiated its witch hunts and investigations of suspected homosexuals which continue to the present day.
The number of homosexuals discharged from the military since WWII was
approaching 100,000 when Congress held its 1993 hearings.

The personal stories shared in the second half of Coming Out Under
Fire include individuals who were able to traverse the military process
with a honorable discharge, as well as those who received "blue," section
eight, dishonorable discharges. Clark was court-martialed for the gay
newsletter he published and Marvin Liebman was dishonorably discharged for
writing a letter to another soldier using the Dorothy Parker phrase
"darling." The irony is that both incidents involved gay camp literature
and highlight the penalties one could receive for participation in an
unauthorized subculture.

Coming Out Under Fire, though at times an emotionally moving film about an important period in gay and lesbian history, suffers from its
overreliance on often redundant voice-over narration, a result, perhaps,
of the film being based on a book, with a tendency to tell rather than
show. The film would have benefited from a greater emphasis on its
historical footage, using voice-over merely to fill in the gaps, for the
archival film featured in Coming Out Under Fire makes for amazing viewing.
At one point, while Clark discusses his arrest and court-martial, a
picture is shown of the cells in which he and his friends were confined -
outdoor wire cages like those in which one would confine a hunting dog.

Although some gay and lesbian soldiers during WWII were treated like
animals, in Heather MacDonald's Ballot Measure 9 some Oregon residents
describe gays and lesbians as less than animals and would most likely have
approved of such inhumane treatment. These Oregonians, however, were more
concerned with preventing gays and lesbians in their state from receiving legal protection against discrimination, which, in their minds, was
somehow equated with "special rights" rather than equal rights.

MacDonald's film examines the political battle over the eponymous
state initiative, sponsored by the Oregon Citizen Alliance (OCA), which
would prohibit any laws protecting homosexuals from discrimination. The
measure would further mandate that all government agencies and schools
recognize homosexuality as "abnormal, wrong, unnatural and perverse."
Unlike Coming Out Under Fire, the film contains almost no archival footage
or Voice-of-God narration. It is a chronicle of the events as they
unfolded in the campaign, direct-cinema style, with the periodic inclusion
of written text over the images, intercut with talking-head interviews.

Though Ballot Measure 9 allows leaders and supporters of both
campaigns to speak out on their own behalf, only interviews of certain "No
on 9" leaders have the appearance of traditional, well-lit, talking-head
interviews. The rest of the footage, including all of the interviews of
the "Yes on 9" leaders, looks as thought it was shot on the run. Whether
intentional or not, these contrasting styles not only allow the "No on 9"
leaders more screen time but also a more casual and relaxed atmosphere in
which to present themselves. They appear to address the audience directly
rather than the camera operator or other individuals in the room. Though
most gay and lesbian audiences will find the comments made by the "Yes on
9" leaders and supporters alienating, the stylistic difference in the
treatment of the two sides only serves to further increase this distance.

In the film, OCA Chairman Lon Mabon tells a lecture group that, "If
we don't meet the challenge of this issue we are facing right now, and
that is the homosexual issue, then we will not have America as we know it.
And that is what this really comes down to, you know, a simple battle between right and wrong, between good and evil." Of course, "right" and
"good" are perceived by the OCA and its supporters as traits applicable
only to themselves. The OCA waged a campaign that demonized homosexuals,
using as a strategy the graphic description of "homosexual" acts,
documenting their widespread prevalence with phantom statistics. The film
shows "Yes on 9" supporters implementing this strategy, with people
responding receptively to it, whether canvassed in a parking lot or lured
at a street fair booth.

As lesbian activist and "No on 9" organizer Donna Red Wing summarized
the OCA's tactic, "They took the stereotypes a lot of people have and
really enlarged them into grotesque caricatures. For many Oregonians that
was the only information they had about gay and lesbian people." In a
debate on the ballot measure, Charles Hinkle, an ACLU attorney and "No on
9" supporter, accuses his debate opponent and the OCA with hoping that, "If they take these two words, homosexual and pedophile, and repeat them
together often enough, people will ignore the facts and vote their fears.
It is a war they are waging alright, and truth was the first casualty."

A recurrent concern expressed by the "Yes on 9" supporters was the
fear that gays and lesbians would recruit their family members and receive
special preference over heterosexuals unless they were prohibited from
being open about their sexuality. As Suzanne Pharr, a national organizer
involved in the "No on 9" campaign, summarized it, "Their belief is that
everybody is born heterosexual and then some of us chose to be wicked. And
then they have that even more curious thing that, if you talk about
homosexuality, then people will become homosexual." This fear of the
spread of homosexuality, as if it was a contagious infection, is a
commonly held belief by those "Yes on 9" supporters interviewed. One of the more curious revelations of the film is the way teenagers
mimicked the concerns expressed by adults, often expressing the logical
ramifications of certain positions which the adults might think but would
never openly admit. During the question and answer period following a
debate at Gladston High School, the comments and questions of the students
showed an insight capable of simplifying the controversy to its basic
core. One student told the "Yes on 9" speaker that, "Heterosexual sex can
be just as dirty, just as unclean, and you can catch the same diseases,"
finally asking him with a hint of sarcasm, "What's your point?" Another
student expressed concern, asking "Who's next? Is it blacks? Is it Native
Americans? Is it Catholics? Is it Mormons? It is Jews? Is it people who
are too tall or too fat? I want to know are you going to whittle away
everybody piece by piece until they are all just like you? Who is next?"

The strategy implemented by the "No on 9" campaign was precisely to
reach out to such other groups, including the minority African-American
and Catholic communities of Oregon, who have experienced similar hatred.
As the majority of such groups came out in support of gays and lesbians,
their initial concerns and fears were validated as the hatred for gays and
lesbians expanded to include them. For example, a local Catholic Church
was vandalized after its priest made a public statement on why Catholics
should oppose Ballot Measure 9. In a dramatic scene we see parishioners
stop to read the walls of the church's sanctuary covered with spray-
painted slogans like "Kill gays and Catholics," "Jews & Spics & Gays," and
"OCA Yes on 9."

As the film progresses toward the November 3, 1992 election, violence
directed toward gays and lesbians, as well as straight "No on 9"
supporters, increases. This increased violence was believed by many to be
the direct result of an atmosphere created by the OCA and its supporters
in which it was acceptable to express hatred for gays and lesbians. The
violence ranged from vandalism and death threats to fire bombings, the
results of which we see in interviews with the victims. OCA leader Lon
Mabon not only refused to accept his organization's responsibility for the
creation of an atmosphere that facilitated such violence but also denied
the violence, claiming, "I know a lot of the hate crimes are perpetrated
by the homosexual community as a media tool."

The comments made by some of the teenagers in the high school debate
provide one with hope for the next generation, but this hope is quickly
dashed by subsequent interviews with teenagers on the street. Incarnating
Suzanne Pharr's analysis, one teenage boy complains, "The little kids are
going to see them all being gay and then they are going to want to be gay.
But if we keep them off the streets, then they are going to grow up and be
just like us." As the younger generation matures, the debate over the place of gays and lesbians in American society will surely continue
because the younger population in Oregon mirrors the conflicts of the
adult population. No generation gap here!

Unlike the gay and lesbian political struggle in Coming Out Under
Fire, which ends in defeat, and Ballot Measure 9, which ends in victory,
there is no resolution of the struggle explored in One Nation Under God, a
feature documentary by Teodoro Maniaci and Francine M. Rzeznik. Rather, it
explores the recycling by religious fundamentalists of discredited
psychiatric treatments from the Sixties, reparative theory, to 'cure'
homosexuals today. A whole cottage ministry known as the ex-gay movement,
complete with organizations and star names, has sprung up within
fundamentalist Christian circles. The film, composed primarily of
interviews, with inserts of psychiatric educational films, archival
footage, public lectures, photographs, graphics, and some minor Voice-of-God narration, explores this movement and its historical roots. Like
Ballot Measure 9, the film allows representatives from both sides of the
debate to speak on their own behalf. Similarly, like Ballot Measure 9 and
unlike Coming Out Under Fire, any editorializing is made primarily not
through a Voice-of-God narrator but instead by the juxtaposition of film
clips of the two sides' public representations of themselves.

Although "Salvation through grace, not works" is a cornerstone of
fundamentalist Christianity, sects within that persuasion believe that
salvation is equated with not only religious conversion to Christianity
but also sexual conversion to heterosexuality. After years of experience,
however, the fundamentalist Christian ex-gay movement has learned that the
two do not 'naturally' occur simultaneously, though only the thousands of
those who have left the ex-gay movement as failures of such conversion are
willing to openly admit it. As a result, prayer as a means to conversion came to be viewed by the ex-gay movement leaders as requiring some
assistance from therapy, thereby opening the door for the introduction of
psychiatry, which fundamentalist Christianity has traditionally scorned.
As Dr. Ralph Blair, a Christian psychologist, states with a dry sense of
humor in the film, "Over the history of the ex-gay movement, it has become
a little more sophisticated. At first, it was just, 'You'll pray and
change.' And then, 'It's a long struggle and you'll change.' And then,
'Maybe with some therapy, also, and prayer you'll change.'"

In their rush to define homosexuality as morally wrong,
fundamentalist Christians have been quick to quote whatever passages of
the Old Testament support their position, such as Leviticus 18:22, while
ignoring other annoying passages such as Leviticus' prohibitions against
eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics. Fundamentalist Christians have
also applied this pick and choose attitude to their encounter with psychoanalysis. Michael Bussee, a former ex-gay who cofounded the ex-gay
organization Exodus International with the man who would later become his
lover, comments, "They just pull out a piece of psychoanalytical theory on
psychosexual development and adopt it like it was gospel. And they
disregard all the rest of it. But they quote it like it was scripture."

One of the best edited sequences in the film is the interweaving of a
speech by Dr. Elizabeth Moberly, a counselor with the ex-gay organization
Exodus International and an advocate of reparative theory, with clips from
an old psychological film on homosexuality. As Ralph Blair mentions prior
to the sequence, "Moberly's ideas are really just a rehash of some dated
psychoanalytic ideas - the belief that people are homosexual because of
their relationship with their parent." Moberly's words in the Nineties
speech parrot almost word for word those of the speaker in the Sixties
film clip as she states, "When a boy had a good relationship with his father, he never became a homosexual, whatever the mother was like."

The psychoanalytic naivete of the ex-gay leaders can be attributed to
their lack of professional training, for, as one interviewee in the film
notes, they are able to successfully circumvent state regulatory licensing
laws for therapists through pastoral counseling exceptions. Not only do
they believe homosexuality to be caused by the child's relationship with
his or her parents, but also that the resultant homosexuality manifests
itself in inappropriate gender alignment. They maintain a strict division
as to appropriate roles and characteristics for each gender, conflating
gender (masculine/feminine) with sex (male/female). These gender
characteristics are, as one might expect, the traditional sex roles that
since the Sixties and the emergence of the second wave of feminism, have
finally begun to loosen. In one interview, Moberly fanatically remarks,
"If you help a male homosexual build a more secure masculine identity, a lesbian build a more secure feminine identity, later on, down the line,
they will be able to choose heterosexual relating."

At an Exodus conference shown in the film, Willa Medinger describes
the goal of the "makeover" workshop she leads, in which women get their
face made up, hair styled, and nails polished, as an attempt "To show them
how pretty they can be, to get an image of themselves that maybe they
never ever had." She continues, in all seriousness, "They haven't taken
the steps of breaking free from the very butch appearance or an appearance
which would cause men to back away from them or to not even want them."
Ironically, Sy Rogers, the president of Exodus International, appears so
butch in the film she could be mistaken for a man. Medinger proposes a
softball game as the comparable 'makeover' for the men. The film
counterpoises her comment with images of the Big Apple Gay and Lesbian
Softball League playing a game, with one softball player summing it up lesbian build a more secure feminine identity, later on, down the line,
they will be able to choose heterosexual relating."

At an Exodus conference shown in the film, Willa Medinger describes
the goal of the "makeover" workshop she leads, in which women get their
face made up, hair styled, and nails polished, as an attempt "To show them
how pretty they can be, to get an image of themselves that maybe they
never ever had." She continues, in all seriousness, "They haven't taken
the steps of breaking free from the very butch appearance or an appearance
which would cause men to back away from them or to not even want them."
Ironically, Sy Rogers, the president of Exodus International, appears so
butch in the film she could be mistaken for a man. Medinger proposes a
softball game as the comparable 'makeover' for the men. The film
counterpoises her comment with images of the Big Apple Gay and Lesbian
Softball League playing a game, with one softball player summing it up succinctly, "Being gay is being gay, and playing softball is playing
softball, and neither one has anything to do with the other."

Like the absurd descriptions of 'oversexed' homosexuals put forth by
the "Yes on 9" supporters in Ballot Measure 9, gay and lesbian audiences
typically find comical the beliefs espoused by the ex-gays and their
everstraight supporters in One Nation Under God - that is, gay men are
effeminate, lesbians hutch, and, if they performed 'appropriate' gender
roles, they would be cured of their homosexuality. Yet, herein lies the
danger, for while it is easy to dismiss these absurd statements, many
heterosexuals, unfortunately, as well as some homosexuals, hear logic
where we hear absurdity.

Though Ballot Measure 9 and One Nation Unde r God illustrate two
different ways in which fundamentalist Christians openly flaunt hatredtoward homosexuals and attempt to eliminate them - in the former film by
legal prohibition and, in the latter, by religious conversion which
includes a parallel conversion to heterosexuality - the films do not
analyze these attitudes. Though they present two important case histories
of fundamentalist Christians' attacks on gays and lesbians, they do not
attempt to help us understand the underlying reasons. Both films, however,
do contain within them the material for beginning such an analysis. It is
politically important to understand where fundamentalist Christians are
coming from because not only are they one of our primary adversaries, but
their religious/moral arguments are also typically borrowed by many of our
other adversaries as justification for their anti-gay and lesbian stances.

The emergence of identity politics since the Sixties solidified the
general trend begun around the turn of the century to view homosexuality
as an internal state 'afflicting' a few rather than an external actioncapable of being performed by all. Such a transition, however, cannot be
fully sustained when discussing fundamentalist Christianity. Though
fundamentalist beliefs allow for a view of homosexuality as being an
"infirmity of the flesh," to quote Galatians 4:13, through which the
homosexual (like the apostle Paul) must persevere, it also views certain
activities as sinful, such as drinking alcohol and sexual relations
(except in monogamous heterosexual same-race marriage).

The use of the term 'homosexual behavior' by fundamentalist
Christians is a strategic move to return to the older definition of
homosexuality as an action, comparable to murder, to use one of the
favorite comparisons voiced in Ballot Measure 9 and One Nation Under God.
This softens the negative perception that they are against individuals by
allowing the rationale of "Love the sinner, hate the sin." If
homosexuality is defined in terms of behavior, it can be classified as sinand, therefore, is susceptible to personal change. All homosexuals have to
do is just say no and stop doing it. But if it is behavior, then not only
is the homosexual susceptible to change, but the reverse is also true, the
heterosexual is susceptible to being converted to homosexuality. Thus,
fundamentalist Christians' fear of recruitment by gays and lesbians is
voiced repeatedly in Ballot Measure 9.

The hostility many fundamentalist Christians feel toward gays and
lesbians can be attributed to a fear of seeing in them their own mirror
image. The continuation of fundamentalist Christianity is based on a
theology of conversion in which nonbelievers are proselytized into the
faith from other 'false' religions or nonbelief in God. To increase their
numbers, they must witness to others and seek out converts - in other
words, recruit. More importantly, their faith is based on a theology that
requires them to evangelize as a sign that they are truly born again because such actions are a manifestation of the fruit of the Holy Spirit,
proof of a rebirth. Because fundamentalist Christianity is grounded in a
theology of conversion, even one's own children must be recruited into the
faith through baptism and public confession of their acceptance of Jesus
Christ as their savior.

Similarly, because gays and lesbians cannot reproduce, fundamentalist
Christians assume they must reproduce by sexual proselytization.
Fundamentalist Christian witnessing can be viewed as a religious form of
cruising. Witnessing and cruising are both about seduction, spiritual and
sexual, respectively. Fundamentalist Christians seek to convert, gays and
lesbians to pervert. Fundamentalist Christians announce the acceptance of
the Christian faith through testimony of being born again, while gays and
lesbians come out. Both are announcements of a new birth, a new beginning,
a turning away from a false self to a pure, true one, a renouncement of an old life and the embrace of a new one. Gays and lesbians cruise for sexual
disciples while fundamentalist Christians witness for religious ones.

To discuss gays and lesbians on one hand and fundamentalist
Christians on the other, however, is to deny their coexistence in the same
individual and to accept that sense of mutual exclusiveness that
fundamentalist Christians posit. But can a gay or lesbian be a Christian?
Such a phenomenon as the Christian ex-gay movement is based on a belief
that the two are incompatible, and that, therefore, a choice must be made
between them.

In One Nation Under God, the coming-out narrative is given a new
twist in the story of Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper. We are first
introduced to Bussee and Cooper during a lecture performance where they
describe Exodus International, the ex-gay organization which they cofounded. The clip, in black and white, is framed within the film as
though they are speaking in the present tense, so one assumes they are ex-
gays. As the telling of their story progresses, however, we learn, in
Bussee's words, "In 1979, at the peak of our ministry, after being
instrumental in starting Exodus, we found that something unexpected had
happened. We realized we had fallen in love with each other. And that we
couldn't keep saying any longer that we were ex-gay." At the point Bussee
says, "Something unexpected happened," the image of Bussee and Cooper,
like Dorothy's arrival in Munchkinland in The Wizard of Oz, turns from
black and white into color, visualizing what could be described as a
second coming out and a second religious conversion occurring
simultaneously, integrating their gayness and their Christian faith.
Bussee and Cooper come out as former ex-gays.

But One Nation Under God does not limit its use of the coming-out narrative to just ex-gays coming out as former ex-gays. After seeing
Gerald Davison in old clips from a 1971 black-and-white film titled
Behavior Therapy for Homosexuality in which he practices reparative
therapy on gay men, we are introduced to him again in the present as a
professor of psychology at the University of Southern California where he
confesses he no longer advocates such therapy. Later in the film he
states, "The very existence of change of orientation programs perpetuate
the idea that homosexuality is bad. And this is one of the reasons that I
have been against these programs being available. They send the message to
people that this change is worthy and we strongly urge this to be changed
and, in fact, we may insist on this being changed. And, if you were really
a good person, you would want to change." In One Nation Under God, not
only do ex-gays come out as former ex-gays, but the professional
reparative therapist comes out as an ex-reparative therapist. Though Coming Out Under Fire, Ballot Measure 9, and One Nation Under
God are traditional documentary films in their structure and do not break
any new stylistic ground, they do contribute to the growing trend
expanding the themes of gay and lesbian documentaries. Just as
fundamentalist Christians have been turning their cameras on us ever since
The Gay Agenda, these documentaries begin the process of turning our
cameras on them.